Could you link to one of Gore's big government, socialist, anti-capatilist tirades? And I'm still waiting, in another thread, for some of the scary left things done by moveon.org.

Mr. Strawmonster.

At least he finally he admits he didn't invent the internet and morehere.

As for moveon... let's see... hmm.. left wing....

The Don't Get Real With Ponzi Scheme Social Security Campaign
The Save NPR and PBS Public-Funded Left Wing Media Campaign
The Carry Water for Gore Campaign
The Nationalized Healthcare Campaign
The Hold Exxon Accountable Campaign
The Anti-Capitalist WalMart Smear Campaign...

At least he finally he admits he didn't invent the internet and morehere.

As for moveon... let's see... hmm.. left wing....

The Don't Get Real With Ponzi Scheme Social Security Campaign
The Save NPR and PBS Public-Funded Left Wing Media Campaign
The Carry Water for Gore Campaign
The Nationalized Healthcare Campaign
The Hold Exxon Accountable Campaign
The Anti-Capitalist WalMart Smear Campaign...

Need more? They are leftists and I oppose their worldview. Next.

Man, Jube, if that's far leftist stuff, how do you even have a name in your world for, you know, actual far leftists? I would think it would be like ultraviolet to you, just off the spectrum into invisibility.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

At least he finally he admits he didn't invent the internet and morehere.

As for moveon... let's see... hmm.. left wing....

The Don't Get Real With Ponzi Scheme Social Security Campaign
The Save NPR and PBS Public-Funded Left Wing Media Campaign
The Carry Water for Gore Campaign
The Nationalized Healthcare Campaign
The Hold Exxon Accountable Campaign
The Anti-Capitalist WalMart Smear Campaign...

Need more? They are leftists and I oppose their worldview. Next.

" The Anti-Capitalist "

Heavily laced with your own personal opinion? Nah!

Objective facts just aren't your thing are they?

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

It is one thing to advocate any one side of a debate. It is entirely another to pretend the other side doesn't even exist.

Scores of scientists have questioned the relevance of the human contributions to global warming. Some have gone as far as taking out newspaper ads to question policy on the issue. Canada's National Post has run an ongoing feature spotlighting many of these so-called 'Deniers'. Very generally, conservative news sources have covered these people in a favourable light, while liberal news outlets have referenced them less favourably.

Only the truly deluded, however, pretend that no "professionals" support the other side of this debate.

One does have to appreciate the irony. You've spent years here deriding Bush for not listening to alternative opinions and you continually reveal yourself to be a different side of the exact same coin.

You mean a small number of very conservative scientists.

Actual links please.

Also I'm sure ( for your comparison ) the current size of Bush's cheerleaders?

If you don't get this I'll spell it out for you. Those opinions you talk about are no longer " Alternative ".

And haven't been for some time.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

As a matter fact I wouldn't know the specifics (i. e. funding sources) of this "hurricane statistician." He would fall within the "intellectual ownership" part of my argument, you know the "old codger" syndrome. But that doesn't matter, we do know somewhat what the FFC is paying the AGW Nihilists, and in the end that is what is really important.

But get this, you too (or J6P or Jane double wide (JDW)) can dowse for hurricanes using historical data, their historic seasonal distribution curve, and current/recent weather/ocean observations (east Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and ENSO knowledge helps a lot). All you need to do is start with the long term trends (5-year averages will do as a start), for example;

Now make your prediction in December of the previous year based on the historical trend. Next have your seasonal trend plot in hand and current weather/ocean conditions and update your prediction in oh let's say April, June, August, and even October for that matter, using, for example;

Hmm, kinda looks line a normal distribution (i. e. bell curve). So that when Dr. Dowser makes his August forecast (as he has always done), he should have a better estimate for the season in total, since some tropical cyclone events have already occurred!

From 1999-2004 not too bad, since these trends follow the the previous years (and the long term average) fairly well. But, it's like Dr. Dowser dusted off his previous year's forecast and resubmitted it again!

And I don't think Dr. Dowser wants to talk too much about his 2005 and 2006 forecasts, because basically he missed both by literally a country mile! For 2007 Dr. Dowser appears to be playing it safe, going back to a forecast more in line with his 1999-2004 forecasts.

As an aside I found this rather enlightening;

Given current US coastal population densities and expected traffic conditions during evacuations, and realizing that this represents the mean accuracy of all storms (it would sure be nice to see some statistical error bars or min/max lines), and forecasted storm intensity, I'd be gettin' outta Dodge at least 48 hours of the predicted landfall, if I were say within 200 miles of said landfall!

There isn't any chance you lived in New Orleans in late August of 2005?

At least post some names of some youngsters, you'd have a better chance. There's a good list at wikipedia, but then most of those I've already researched, you may have to come up with some new ones. Funny thing is, as time goes by, fewer and fewer bona fide scientists doing active peer reviewed climate research are joining the AGW Nihilists ranks!

And I wonder why?

PS - And no, this is not where you get to attack GCM's, that's a different matter entirely.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

The government scientists that support global warming are ALSO on the take. They want more govt grants for endless study of a non-existent problem. They are getting paid by congress, and congress under Dems want to hear that this is a problem. It's impossible to tell who is a whore and who is not. But Global Warming Hysteria is just that- hysteria. Someday, this will all be on the level of windshield pitting.

The government scientists that support global warming are ALSO on the take. They want more govt grants for endless study of a non-existent problem. They are getting paid by congress, and congress under Dems want to hear that this is a problem. It's impossible to tell who is a whore and who is not. But Global Warming Hysteria is just that- hysteria. Someday, this will all be on the level of windshield pitting.

They're all wrong I tell ya!

Someday they'll see I'm right!

Someday!

For support of your statement
please show conclusively that it's not a problem and please provide a link.

What might seem like hysteria might be worry and panic because for some things ( and species ) it's already too late!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

For support of your statement
please show conclusively that it's not a problem and please provide a link.

What might seem like hysteria might be worry and panic because for some things ( and species ) it's already too late!

You seem to be on a "prove it with a link" kick lately. As if any idiot has a problem posting anything they want to a website.

Please show conclusively that it IS a problem. Please provide a link, as well as professional credentials, SSN, blood type, and a list of political donations in the past 2 cycles. You can't. It is not CONCLUSIVE that GW is man-made. I guess I just don't care enough about what you or anyone on this board thinks to waste my valuable time finding links for you to trash anyway.

You seem to be on a "prove it with a link" kick lately. As if any idiot has a problem posting anything they want to a website.

Please show conclusively that it IS a problem. Please provide a link, as well as professional credentials, SSN, blood type, and a list of political donations in the past 2 cycles. You can't. It is not CONCLUSIVE that GW is man-made. I guess I just don't care enough about what you or anyone on this board thinks to waste my valuable time finding links for you to trash anyway.

Well I've never said it was conclusive did I?

Besides the burden of proof for your last statement is well.....yours!

However it is most likely ( that's more likely than not ) since there is a mountain of evidence compared to a handful of scientisits and some wingnuts who don't want it to be true.

When something is most likely......oh say like you suspect a train is coming. But you don't know for sure. But there's a lot of evidence to suggest it is. It's generally not wise to just stand on the tracks.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

You seem to be on a "prove it with a link" kick lately. As if any idiot has a problem posting anything they want to a website.

Please show conclusively that it IS a problem. Please provide a link, as well as professional credentials, SSN, blood type, and a list of political donations in the past 2 cycles. You can't. It is not CONCLUSIVE that GW is man-made. I guess I just don't care enough about what you or anyone on this board thinks to waste my valuable time finding links for you to trash anyway.

And no one gives a rat's what you think in this (or any other) thread! I must admit your "hit and run" style of posts was way old right from the get go!

But if you must have a link, I'd suggest googling IPCC, just a few thousand names and references over there!

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

And no one gives a rat's what you think in this (or any other) thread! I must admit your "hit and run" style of posts was way old right from the get go!

But if you must have a link, I'd suggest googling IPCC, just a few thousand names and references over there!

You need another lol. I missed your point.

I really could care less what anyone here thinks as well... I'm not sure what you mean by "hit and run" - I get into and stay in threads, so throw something else at me.

You know, you guys think that you are changing minds and hearts to make people think that you are right. In reality, we're all here just polarizing and ranting. If being on your side means being like you, then make me want to be more like you. Have a real discussion and maybe try to bring people over to your side. Otherwise, you're just here looking for a target for your anger at the right. You are doing nothing to win people to your way of thinking.

Do any of you leftists in here think you are doing a damn thing to convert people who disagree with you? I can count on one hand the number of those ideologically opposed to my points of view that have really given me pause with my worldview. This place is not dialog and understanding... it's just another pathetic ground for the culture war. Even though I disagree with midwinter and addabox, I can at least say that they bring very valid points to the table... points worth further looking into and maybe even a change of heart. As for many of you, if what I have read here is what it means to be a Democrat, well then I'll keep voting, but never that way. Take a minute for the rhetorical question: Am I helping or hurting my cause on election day? My vote is worth exactly what yours is. I don't think many of you want to influence people- you are pissed at Bush and republicans and anyone you consider not like you... so you take it out on whoever you can find.

All of you that live in 2-D partisan world, go for it. Thrash and demean and do whatever makes you feel like you did something for "the cause." In reality, you are just another pawn in the game. One of the proles fighting a useless battle over the mythical "Republican" and "Democrat." I am amazed at how many of you- some smart folks- who just do not get how useless the partisan process is. Pull back the veil and see the truth. All of you, left and right, are being controlled in this cute little electoral game... something to keep you busy while the real powers are designing your future.

I really could care less what anyone here thinks as well... I'm not sure what you mean by "hit and run" - I get into and stay in threads, so throw something else at me.

You know, you guys think that you are changing minds and hearts to make people think that you are right. In reality, we're all here just polarizing and ranting. If being on your side means being like you, then make me want to be more like you. Have a real discussion and maybe try to bring people over to your side. Otherwise, you're just here looking for a target for your anger at the right. You are doing nothing to win people to your way of thinking.

Do any of you leftists in here think you are doing a damn thing to convert people who disagree with you? I can count on one hand the number of those ideologically opposed to my points of view that have really given me pause with my worldview. This place is not dialog and understanding... it's just another pathetic ground for the culture war. Even though I disagree with midwinter and addabox, I can at least say that they bring very valid points to the table... points worth further looking into and maybe even a change of heart.

All of you that live in 2-D partisan world, go for it. Thrash and demean and do whatever makes you feel like you did something for "the cause." In reality, you are just another pawn in the game. One of the proles fighting a useless battle over the mythical "Republican" and "Democrat." I am amazed at how many of you- some smart folks- who just do not get how useless the partisan process is. Pull back the veil and see the truth. All of you, left and right, are being controlled in this cute little electoral game... something to keep you busy while the real powers are designing your future.

Instead of pontificating why not try to support your statements with some objective facts.

Instead of you " bringing valid points to the table " all we're hearing is Jublem's subjective viewpoint.

Actually you sound a little angry because a lot of people here don't share your viewpoint.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Instead of pontificating why not try to support your statements with some objective facts.

Instead of you " bringing valid points to the table " all we're hearing is Jublem's subjective viewpoint.

Actually you sound a little angry because a lot of people here don't share your viewpoint.

Actually, I enjoy talking to others who want to have a discussion who disagree with me... like addabox or midwinter or a handful of others. They are articulate, mature, smart people with well-considered points of view. The kind of folks who could actually change my mind someday.

Everyone brings their own viewpoint to the table. Mine is valid. Yours is too. All of our experiences and points of view are subjective. We can both find whatever science, whatever article, whatever charge, whatever item we need to keep our own side "right." It's part of the human animal.

Actually, I enjoy talking to others who want to have a discussion who disagree with me... like addabox or midwinter or a handful of others. They are articulate, mature, smart people with well-considered points of view. The kind of folks who could actually change my mind someday.

Everyone brings their own viewpoint to the table. Mine is valid. Yours is too. All of our experiences and points of view are subjective. We can both find whatever science, whatever article, whatever charge, whatever item we need to keep our own side "right." It's part of the human animal.

Yes. But in a forum of this nature ( especially if you're not an expert on the subject matter at hand ) people usually present a support for their viewpoint.

Harlan Ellison a writer of some fame once said " Everyone is entitled to their informed opinion ".

No. Reduction of energy use and dependence on foreign oil has national benefits outside the environment. Redution of pollution reduces costs and improves health for US citizens and therefore has national benefits outside the environment.

As a consequence of a market supply/demand and capital flow to profitable enterprises all energy development has national benefits outside the environment. Selling/leasing drilling in ANWAR, off shore, etc is very beneficial in reducing dependence AND helping many State economies. Reduction of pollution can have benefits, depending on the cost of pollution reduction vs the value of the benefit.

There is no pat answer to externalities, other than economic. For example it is nonsensical to burn a trillion dollars of wealth to prevent a hundred billion in damages. The calculus for a totally pollution free world is so costly as to ensure human misery and death from a simple lack of other resourcess. The richer industrializing countries, even with some pollution, provides a better life than a desperately poor one, no matter how pure the air.

The answer to pollution is cost/benefit ... which is not a slogan but an objective calculation.

Quote:

The data as shown appear to disagree. Reduction in ice caps and glaciers is not subject to debate or require significant analysis. These are easily verified using commonly available imagery from Google and others. They certainly are lower than in the past 100 years and further based on oral/historical accounts.

Actually they are open to debate. While there seems to be a general agreement that we have exited the little ice age (since 1850) the degree of warming as well as the contributions from various sources is still open to dispute.

But I would agree that the earth has grown milder...a good thing!

Quote:

There is a wealth of data available. There is also some data reserved for the project scientists to write their papers first before other folks get to use the data. This seems to be pretty common....In any case, these are unsupported accusations of unarmed scientists. There are many scientists that release data, methods and calculations.

You misunderstand. The issue is that the so called scientists routinely refuse to identify they use, in totality. Without knowing the specific datasets, and the data elements drawn from those sets, it makes it hard to audit a study or its claims. Without knowing the stepwise procedures, or providing documentation, it also makes an audit very difficult.

See www.climateaudit.org for a run-down. I think I also provided prior links in this thread (Ill check).

Quote:

"...and perhaps improving the quality of life while using many resources is also a good thing. These kind of eco-judgments are always based on subjective and collective 'engineering' of human well-being - this kind of 'input-output' formula for human happiness eludes me. "

This is nonsense. If we can continue to increase our standard of living while reducing the resources we need we are more competitive in the world marketplace able to export more and import less. This also implies technological improvements and more opportunities for the US to excel.

Again, you have some kind of social engineering - Soviet style mentality. As every economist knows the use of resources is based on supply and demand, and resultant market price. The usefulness of lowering the use of resources for a given unit of production depends on land (resources), capital, and labor. Cheap and plentiful resources may play small role in the cost of production (i.e. capital and labor may play a much greater role). It may/may not make sense to invest a lot of money to reducing the cost of resources, and it may make more sense to improve rates of productivity or higher more skilled workers, etc. It just depends on the product.

AND supply and demand also direct investment. If price rises, investment flows towards increasing supply and/or using it more efficiently (and thus lowering the price). So let the price rise.

Your simple view is that of a lay person. Even if you have never taken economics you should understand the key to lowering the unit cost of producing a Kebler cookie (for example) is not in telling the baker to use less flour and fewer chocolate chips. That is short-sighted.

Quote:

"As my background is economics, I rather think supply meeting demand is a good thing."

I suggest you need to revisit estimates of Chinese growth in resource use. Doesn't seem like you are all that much better informed in your own field of expertise that you have significant latitude to criticize climate scientists.

Your statement is incomprehensible. Chinese growth would be impossible if supply were not meeting demand, that is why it is a good thing. And the supplies are meeting demand because as price nudges upward, more supplies are found.

Yes supply meeting demand is not only a good thing, it is the core of an introduction to economics. As demand inceases, price increases, then supply increases. Get a textbook.

Quote:

Because you are being obtuse. There are environmentalists that would dismantle our military and commercial capabilities and are anti-technology in general. There are environmentalists that are pro-business and are pro-technology.

Sure there are, like Bjon Borg. However, most environmental activists are not pro INDUSTRY - they love the 'soft' products without material substance (e.g. Gore and Google). However, they don't like auto manufacturers ('the big three'), developers, steel makers, oil drillers, etc. - the people that feed, house, transport, and cloth us. NOPE, environmentalists are touchy-feely types who adore 'virtual reality' crapola.

Which is Gore? Gore is a new age type - he first made his own mark in politics, and has moved his family money (from politics, tobacco, and oil) to 'soft' techie products. Now that he is a celebrity, he gets appointed to boards and gets lots of stock options. I don't consider Gore one of the producer class - he is just a variation of the 2nd rate political elite looter. He could no more manage a factory than he could get through law school.

Quote:

Why pull our oil out of the ground at $64 a barrel when we know that in 20 years it will be worth far more?

Because it may make sense NOW when oil prices push us into economic slowdowns. Let the market decide.

Look Vinea, all you are doing is pushing cliques (I'm waiting for the addiction to oil mantra). If you have not even taken a single economics course, I am not sure any further discussion will help you. And I don't have time to teach the basics of supply, demand, marginal cost, free riders, risk & profit, etc.

Till then, if you want to read my take, go to climate audit. They make a number of good points (esp. today) that may give you a glimpse of what is behind my skeptical view on climate science.

I really could care less what anyone here thinks as well... I'm not sure what you mean by "hit and run" - I get into and stay in threads, so throw something else at me.

You know, you guys think that you are changing minds and hearts to make people think that you are right. In reality, we're all here just polarizing and ranting. If being on your side means being like you, then make me want to be more like you. Have a real discussion and maybe try to bring people over to your side. Otherwise, you're just here looking for a target for your anger at the right. You are doing nothing to win people to your way of thinking.

Do any of you leftists in here think you are doing a damn thing to convert people who disagree with you? I can count on one hand the number of those ideologically opposed to my points of view that have really given me pause with my worldview. This place is not dialog and understanding... it's just another pathetic ground for the culture war. Even though I disagree with midwinter and addabox, I can at least say that they bring very valid points to the table... points worth further looking into and maybe even a change of heart. As for many of you, if what I have read here is what it means to be a Democrat, well then I'll keep voting, but never that way. Take a minute for the rhetorical question: Am I helping or hurting my cause on election day? My vote is worth exactly what yours is. I don't think many of you want to influence people- you are pissed at Bush and republicans and anyone you consider not like you... so you take it out on whoever you can find.

All of you that live in 2-D partisan world, go for it. Thrash and demean and do whatever makes you feel like you did something for "the cause." In reality, you are just another pawn in the game. One of the proles fighting a useless battle over the mythical "Republican" and "Democrat." I am amazed at how many of you- some smart folks- who just do not get how useless the partisan process is. Pull back the veil and see the truth. All of you, left and right, are being controlled in this cute little electoral game... something to keep you busy while the real powers are designing your future.

Actually I've never thought of changing your mind, nor the minds of the few people who are quite obviously polarized to the far right, as you appear to be.

It is to inform the larger body of individuals who read these threads that I am trying to reach, by dispelling subjective statements, as put forth by a small group of individuals who shall remain nameless! To speak to the science, to objectivity, to observational and empirical data, and to SOTA predictive models/theories.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Actually I've never thought of changing your mind, nor the minds of the few people who are quite obviously polarized to the far right, as you appear to be.

It is to inform the larger body of individuals who read these threads that I am trying to reach, by dispelling subjective statements, as put forth by a small group of individuals who shall remain nameless! To speak to the science, to objectivity, to observational and empirical data, and to SOTA predictive models/theories.

You don't know me, who and what I vote for, who I donate to, or much else about me, and if you read my posts (here we go again) you'll find my disdain for the far left and far right. I know they are both going to take us down, down, down.

You don't know me, who and what I vote for, who I donate to, or much else about me, and if you read my posts (here we go again) you'll find my disdain for the far left and far right. I know they are both going to take us down, down, down.

That's what you say but your statements clearly reflect an attitude that is about as far right as one could get.

So whatever.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Let's see now I've taken 4 economics courses, about 6 math courses (4 calculus), and two graduate level statistics courses, at the college and graduate levels. One of those courses was entitled Engineering Economics (got an A), it was a graduate level course, now imagine that! Woo hoo, big deal!

So basically economics/statistics are no brainers!

Theory and practice are two different things entirely, particularly when dealing with economic issues since these are purely human driven value issues.

I certainly understand that lower fuel costs today may vary well lead to future costs associated with GW effects. Basically, pay me now or pay me later.

As to your "theory" of audited research, that is a oxymoron if there ever was one! I know you are ignoring my posts, but you just might read my post WRT standardized research, sorry dude, but it ain't gonna happen!

Bookkeepers as researchers, that's a good one, do you have any more auditing jokes?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

You don't know me, who and what I vote for, who I donate to, or much else about me, and if you read my posts (here we go again) you'll find my disdain for the far left and far right. I know they are both going to take us down, down, down.

Sorry dude, but you are very easy to read.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

Your argument from authority doesn't work with me dude!
Let's see now I've taken 4 economics courses, about 6 math courses (4 calculus), and two graduate level statistics courses, at the college and graduate levels. One of those courses was entitled Engineering Economics (got an A), it was a graduate level course, now imagine that! Woo hoo, big deal!

So basically economics/statistics are no brainers!

Let's see, you said you took the econ and math courses so they must be nobrainers! Who are we to object?

Quote:

Theory and practice are two different things entirely, particularly when dealing with economic issues since these are purely human driven value issues.

I know, the theory behind, and practice of engineering are ENTIRELY different, and when dealing with engineering issues they are purely human driven value issues.

Quote:

I know you are ignoring my posts, but you just might read my post WRT standardized research, sorry dude, but it ain't gonna happen!

Bookkeepers as researchers, that's a good one, do you have any more auditing jokes?

I am not ignoring your posts, I'm just waiting for your 'sorry dude' commentary to be mature and thoughtful before I give them any sustained or serious attention. Till then...

Not hysteria at all. Atmospheric CFCs definitely deplete ozone, by reducing their use we have seen declines in concentration and ozone levels have been trending upward. That's a good thing.

The fact that natural phenomena like massive solar storms can put a big hit on arctic ozone levels in no way obviates global efforts to reduce ozone depleting gasses in the atmosphere, any more than the possibility of earthquake makes it pointless to build sturdy buildings.

Damn, now I want candy.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

Not hysteria at all. Atmospheric CFCs definitely deplete ozone, by reducing their use we have seen declines in concentration and ozone levels have been trending upward. That's a good thing.

The fact that natural phenomena like massive solar storms can put a big hit on arctic ozone levels in no way obviates global efforts to reduce ozone depleting gasses in the atmosphere, any more than the possibility of earthquake makes it pointless to build sturdy buildings.

Damn, now I want candy.

I was just thinking about how I heard throughout the 80s that if we did not DO SOMETHING and DO IT NOW the planet would be uninhabitable by Y2K (Ted Danson). That's the kind of hysteria I am referring to.

We live on an amazingly self-regulating planet that is far beyond our control... that's my belief. I am concerned that the Gulf Stream is shutting down due to more fresh water in the N. Atlantic. I don't like the rapid rate of growth in the Sahara. I just cannot come down decisively as to a human cause because there is not enough longitudinal data with evil humans in the mix.

What can you illuminate for me about CO2 versus water vapor as a greenhouse cause?

I was just thinking about how I heard throughout the 80s that if we did not DO SOMETHING and DO IT NOW the planet would be uninhabitable by Y2K (Ted Danson). That's the kind of hysteria I am referring to.

We live on an amazingly self-regulating planet that is far beyond our control... that's my belief. I am concerned that the Gulf Stream is shutting down due to more fresh water in the N. Atlantic. I don't like the rapid rate of growth in the Sahara. I just cannot come down decisively as to a human cause because there is not enough longitudinal data with evil humans in the mix.

What can you illuminate for me about CO2 versus water vapor as a greenhouse cause?

Both are GH gases and there's much more water vapor in the air (PPMV) then there is CO2 (ratio is highly variable but from ~25:1 to ~100:1 in favor of water vapor). Both are accounted for in the GCM's. I know that wikipedia has a fairly detailed breakdown of atmospheric composition if you want some hard numbers.

As to the hysteria, I wish you all would kinda ignore the MSM, their just looking to gin up news.

And really, we are really more or less stuck with this no matter what the predictions say and what the actual outcome is. Do you actually think we all can cap, let alone cut CO2 emissions by 20% to 50% from current levels in the near term (next 20 years)?

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!

As to the hysteria, I wish you all would kinda ignore the MSM, their just looking to gin up news.

Ay, there's the rub... and much of the problem. The MSM has created a constant drumbeat of hysterical frenzy about the causes, and moreover, the solutions. Even Gore has elevated this from a political or scientific to "moral" argument.

I was just thinking about how I heard throughout the 80s that if we did not DO SOMETHING and DO IT NOW the planet would be uninhabitable by Y2K (Ted Danson). That's the kind of hysteria I am referring to.

We live on an amazingly self-regulating planet that is far beyond our control... that's my belief. I am concerned that the Gulf Stream is shutting down due to more fresh water in the N. Atlantic. I don't like the rapid rate of growth in the Sahara. I just cannot come down decisively as to a human cause because there is not enough longitudinal data with evil humans in the mix.

What can you illuminate for me about CO2 versus water vapor as a greenhouse cause?

There is a very important distinction to be made, as you will read if you follow the link to Real Climate, between water vapour's role in the Earth's Greenhouse effect and it's role in climate change. If you were to read through the table of climate forcings in the IPCC report or at NASA's page about forcings in its GCM, you won't find water vapour there at all. This is not because climate scientists are trying to hide the role of water vapour, rather it is because H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapour concentrations is too short lived to change the climate. Too much in the air will quickly rain out, not enough and the abundant ocean surface will provide the difference via evaporation. But once the air is warmed by other means, H2O concentrations will rise and stay high, thus providing the feedback.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.